Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T23:31:28.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic assimilation of part of a mutant phenotype

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

James N. Thompson Jr  and
J. M. Thoday
James N. Thompson Jr
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge, Milton Road, Cambridge CB4 1XH
J. M. Thoday
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge, Milton Road, Cambridge CB4 1XH
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

When the mutant veinlet was removed from a Drosophila melanogaster line selected for shortened vein length it was found that the selected polygenic background produced vein gaps in the absence of the major mutant. This example of genetic assimilation was unusual, however, in that the phenotype of the assimilated line was not exactly the same as the phenotype of the original selection line. It differed in two respects: only one of the longitudinal veins was affected in the assimilation line whereas all veins are shortened in the selected ve line, and vein gaps were sub-terminal in the assimilated line whereas they are terminal in veinlet. Modifiers of L 4 vein length were found to be located on both chromosomes II and III, though the chromosome II factor had a larger effect and was required for gap formation. The chromosome II gene was mapped to the same position as a similar L 4 vein length polygene (PL(2)L4a) found in another veinlet selection line and reported elsewhere. The pattern of expression of the ve mutant and the assimilated line genotype were compared using profiles of vein frequency at given points. The vein pattern profiles are discussed in relation to an hypothesis to explain the observed selection response and the effectiveness which these polygene combinations showed in modifying the much more complex veinlet phenotype.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , October 1975 , pp. 149 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

References

REFERENCES

Dun, R. B. & Fraser, A. S. (1958). Selection for an invariant character – ‘vibrissa number’ – in the house mouse. Nature 181, 1018–1019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dun, R. B. & Fraser, A. S. (1959). Selection for an invariant character, vibrissa number, in the house mouse. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 12, 506–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, A. (1967). Variation of scutellar bristles in Drosophila. XV. Systems of modifiers. Genetics 57, 919–934.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
House, V. L. (1953). The interaction of mutants affecting venation in Drosophila melanogaster. II. Additive and pattern effects of combinations of Hairless, engrailed, and cubitus interruptus. Genetics 38, 309–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindsley, D. L. & Grell, E. H. (1967). Genetic Variations of Drosophila melanogaster. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington.Google Scholar
Milkman, R. (1970). The genetic basis of natural variation in Drosophila melanogaster. Advances in Genetics 15, 55–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rendel, J. M. (1959). Canalization of the scute phenotype of Drosophila. Evolution 13, 425–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rendel, J. M. (1968). Genetic control of a developmental process. In Population Biology and Evolution (ed. Lewontin, R. C.), pp. 47–66. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
Scharloo, W. (1962). The influence of selection and temperature on a mutant character (ciD) in Drosophila melanogaster. Archives Neerlandaises de Zoologie 14, 431–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharloo, W. (1964). Mutant expression and canalization. Nature 203, 1095–1096.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stern, C. (1958). Selection for subthreshold differences and the origin of pseudoexogenous adaptations. American Naturalist 92, 313–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thoday, J. M. (1961). Location of polygenes. Nature 191, 368–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, J. N. Jr (1973). General and specific effects of modifiers of mutant expression. Genetical Research 22, 211–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, J. N. Jr (1974). Studies on the nature and function of polygenic loci in Drosophila. I. Comparison of genomes from selection lines. Heredity 33, 373–387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, J. N. Jr (1975). Studies on the nature and function of polygenic loci in Drosophila. III. Veinlet modifiers having region-specific effects upon the vein pattern. Genetics (in the Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, J. N. Jr & Thoday, J. M. (1972). Modification of dominance by selection in the homozygote. Heredity 29, 285–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, J. N. Jr & Thoday, J. M. (1974). A definition and standard nomenclature for ‘polygenie loci’. Heredity 33, 430–437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waddington, C. H. (1953). Genetic assimilation of an acquired character. Evolution 7, 118–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddington, C. H. (1956). Genetic assimilation of the bithorax phenotype. Evolution 10, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddington, C. H. (1961). Genetic assimilation. Advances in Genetics 10, 257–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed